If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

So far the only two arguments I have seen in this thread from the nay crowd is 1) the possible prison sentence is too long, which is a legit argument that can be discussed.

The other argument is the law is "too vague" and someone could run afoul of the law if they wear a mask while threatening the life of someone because they don't want that person to sit on a park bench. This is actually an argument that has been made. So I guess it's bad because people should be able to threaten the lives of others for mundane things? I guess?

Here's an idea for the "too vague" crowd; don't threaten, harass, assault, or intimidate another person for any reason, while wearing a mask or not, and you won't have to worry about it.

So far the only two arguments I have seen in this thread from the nay crowd is 1) the possible prison sentence is too long, which is a legit argument that can be discussed.

The other argument is the law is "too vague" and someone could run afoul of the law if they wear a mask while threatening the life of someone because they don't want that person to sit on a park bench. This is actually an argument that has been made. So I guess it's bad because people should be able to threaten the lives of others for mundane things? I guess?

Here's an idea for the "too vague" crowd; don't threaten, harass, assault, or intimidate another person for any reason, while wearing a mask or not, and you won't have to worry about it.

If you are caught wearing a mask while violence is occurring around you, one has to wager that you are also in on the violence.

It's bad because it doesn't directly call out EVERY side. Yes, if I were in Antifa I would be feeling very targeted, and in my opinion, rightfully so. The association with Antifa in this bill is meant to likely push it further than it would go if it were a blanket covering of 'any group'. The wording is finely chosen.

This includes hoods, for the 'too vague' crowd. You cannot incite violence while wearing facial covering and to be fair if you are going to be violent, show me your fucking face. You want to be hateful? Show me your fucking face so when I see you, I can point at you in a crowd and call you on your bullshit. That goes for everyone. White, black, gay, straight, fucking whatever.

So far the only two arguments I have seen in this thread from the nay crowd is 1) the possible prison sentence is too long, which is a legit argument that can be discussed.

The other argument is the law is "too vague" and someone could run afoul of the law if they wear a mask while threatening the life of someone because they don't want that person to sit on a park bench. This is actually an argument that has been made. So I guess it's bad because people should be able to threaten the lives of others for mundane things? I guess?

Here's an idea for the "too vague" crowd; don't threaten, harass, assault, or intimidate another person for any reason, while wearing a mask or not, and you won't have to worry about it.

It's unnecessary. If a crime is being committed it doesn't matter if you're wearing a mask or not, you're still breaking the law. All this does is add a ridiculous modifier to it. It's also an authoritarian's wet dream.

It doesn't matter though, it won't pass. It's just more political posturing and grandstanding.

There's no straw man here. I already gave you evidence of the fact that hate crimes are significantly more damaging to the direct victims and the community. And yet you're maintaining that they shouldn't have enhanced sentencing to account for that fact. And you have yet to articulate an actual reason why hate crimes should should not take into account the same sentencing considerations that apply to ALL other crimes.

And if you're willing to get behind enhanced sentencing for other forms of terrorism- the form of terrorism that is most likely to affect white straight christians- but not hate crimes- a form of terrorism that is most likely to affect LGBTQ/religious minority/people of color- then you are participating in the kind of casual discrimination that makes life so much harder on those people.

Finally, I will point out that you're effectively more concerned with the well-being of the perpetrators of hate crimes than the victims.

The vagueness argument (mine) goes more like this: some protestors wear masks. Someone claims they feel intimidated because they got in a shouting match at a protest. Police/prosecutors latch onto this and threaten to tack on 15 years to what would have otherwise been probably a misdemeanor or nothing at all. They round up anyone and everyone who did or may have worn a mask and threaten 15 years in prison. It's written in an overly broad manner just for this purpose: to intimidate and quell free speech. The "Antifa" tag line is just a red herring.

As Richardcranium said, it's an authoritarian's wet dream: round up people and threaten with 15 year prison sentence because headwear: dissent quelled.

I don't use Lich. If you want to do business with me, contact me via PM, IG, or on AIM. Or maybe use smoke signals. Don't like it, get off of my lawn.

The vagueness argument (mine) goes more like this: some protestors wear masks. Someone claims they feel intimidated because they got in a shouting match at a protest. Police/prosecutors latch onto this and threaten to tack on 15 years to what would have otherwise been probably a misdemeanor or nothing at all. They round up anyone and everyone who did or may have worn a mask and threaten 15 years in prison. It's written in an overly broad manner just for this purpose: to intimidate and quell free speech. The "Antifa" tag line is just a red herring.

As Richardcranium said, it's an authoritarian's wet dream: round up people and threaten with 15 year prison sentence because headwear: dissent quelled.

I don't like the "intimidation" part. That is a subjective term that varies heavily by person. I'm fine with the other uses.

It's unnecessary. If a crime is being committed it doesn't matter if you're wearing a mask or not, you're still breaking the law. All this does is add a ridiculous modifier to it. It's also an authoritarian's wet dream.

A good reason for why these types of laws are necessary is because anonymity tends to make people feel emboldened to take actions they otherwise might not. Look at cwolff, you really think he would say half the racist shit he says if he were not wearing a mask out in public somewhere? Probably not.

A few white nationalists who who marched in Charlottesville lost their jobs, while Antifa pussies can hide behind their masks.

These types of laws also help law enforcement. It's all but impossible to identify someone who commits a crime if they have their entire body covered. Look at that one Antifa thug who was a professor that was hitting people over the heads with a giant metal bike lock, causing serious injuries. He attacked 3 people on 3 separate days and no one could identify him. It wasn't until 4chan got involved that the police either had the evidence they needed or decided to get off of their asses.

The vagueness argument (mine) goes more like this: some protestors wear masks. Someone claims they feel intimidated because they got in a shouting match at a protest. Police/prosecutors latch onto this and threaten to tack on 15 years to what would have otherwise been probably a misdemeanor or nothing at all. They round up anyone and everyone who did or may have worn a mask and threaten 15 years in prison. It's written in an overly broad manner just for this purpose: to intimidate and quell free speech. The "Antifa" tag line is just a red herring.

Sounds like the simple solution is to not wear a mask.

Originally Posted by Archigeek

As Richardcranium said, it's an authoritarian's wet dream: round up people and threaten with 15 year prison sentence because headwear: dissent quelled.

Round up people knowingly breaking the law? I don't see the problem here.

And let's stop with the dissent bullshit. You really think Antifa is out there protesting the government because Trump is a bigoted racist? No. They are out there physically attacking people. Have you not heard of all of the attackers Antifa has been involved in? Or are you just choosing to ignore those attacks because it doesn't fit your argument?